Hm, one of the uses for the Zend engine (which lies a tthe heart of php4) is to get embedded into MySQL, stored procedures are going to get implemented in Zend..
Something to that effect is still available on the php.net homepage. Check there and zend.com for a more definitive answer.
Why does every story on MySQL have to contain a complaint like this (and why are they always moderated up to the heavens)?
A MNemOnic I offer to the world: MySQL is Not Oracle. It doesn't try to be one, that's not the goal. Yes, it isn't a heck of a lot more than an SQL frontend to a flat file system. That's all some of us want. OK, subselects would be nice, but IIRC they're working on that. But this constant kvetching about lack of transactions should really stop. If you want something with transactions, use Postgres or Interbase or pay for it.
I get nervous when judges come near the internet. Our fears, however, can be a little alleviated in that, supposing that people actually want the internet around, they can't outright stop us from linking to each other, the only issue might be a few trivial lawsuits which would overturn such a foolish decision.
My worry is that precedents will be set that later judges will be loath to overturn; and, even if they get set it will give those with legal resources a stick with which to beat those without legal resources.
The worst-case version of this scenario is if the decisions go "against" linking, i.e. making linking to disputed content tantamount to hosting and/ or distributing the disputed content yourself. Then the RIAA, MPAA, etc. will have a great deal of power, by simply threatening to exercise their "rights" to seek redress, giving them de facto control over content on the web.
True... but doesn't the point carry across to any organization that simply exhibits a willingness to litigate? Y'know, I could *almost* support PETA... at least as a corrective to the extreme "they're just animals" kind of view out there. But, given
Their reaction to CBS showing people eating rats on the grounds that it will encourage imitation (err... yeah) I mean, what about Cheers when Norm would head over to the Hungry Heifer? Where was PETA then?
Their objection to people actually eating rats (do you think they *like* this? It's a survival issue, methinks)
The fact that they pursued a *lawsuit* to shut down a parody site
Simply reinforces the idea that all lefties are rigid and humourless, and it doesn't help their cause much (the good points they make will be obscured by these bad ones). Bad news. Bad PETA. </rant>
Microsoft 's best chance is to try and run the clock on the Clinton [administration].
You are thinking "Just another reason to move this along as fast as possible!"
If you want to endorse banana republic justice, then you're right.
"Banana Republic Justice" sounds to me like what you get when the wealthy and unelected control the (ostensibly) elected. Suppose they are trying to ram this through on Clinton/Reno's watch... and suppose MS' strategy IS to delay as long as possible and hope the Shrub will pull their ass out of the fire. Well, that's equally cynical, and every bit as much "Banana Republic" as you allege against the DOJ.
Let's remind ourselves of who is recommending the most expeditious resolution of this case. Judge Jackson is the one who made this decision. Why the hell would he want to help out Clinton? Sure, he doesn't want to be reversed, but if that's his aim, then he's going to go for the most legally defensible ruling he can come up with. Notice, again, how hard he's tried to get the two parties to settle. That doesn't sound like the actions of a rabid trust-buster, now, does it?
In pursuing a delaying strategy, MS seems to be accepting that, judicially, they don't have much to stand on (speaking cautiously: all indications are that a witness of theirs lied, and incredibly clumsily, at one point during the trial, and on a non-trivial issue -- that infects ALL of their testimony).
Maybe the point of pushing this through on the current watch is precisely that the decision that's made is LESS LIKELY to be made on the basis of irrelevant factors. At least, whatever people may think of Jackson's knowledge of the IT industry, I think it's pretty clear that the Shrub's is likely to be much, much worse (again, I speak with the lawyers).
the two involved free licences (GPL versus QPL) are mutually incompatible, which makes any distribution of binaries of GPL'ed software that is linked to QT simply illegal!
If this quote (which is apparently what Debian maintains) is true, then aren't Redhat, Corel, Mandrake, SuSE, (etc. etc. etc. etc.) BREAKING THE LAW by distributing binary KDE packages?
Do their respective legal departments know about this?
Or is the whole issue moot because those who would have to bring forth a complaint about license violations simply won't bother? (And who would those people be, anyhow? The KDE coders?)
there are very good points in there, and I don't see anything offtopic here...
ummm... except maybe that it's a rant about MySQL, and this is a review of a book about the Perl DBI?
This isn't to deny that there aren't good points in there (there are some very good points that people looking for a DBMS should know about), but it is to deny that it's on topic.
I'm too lazy to go out and find the urls at the moment, but there are two tools that can fix your MS-Word HTML problems. The W3C now offers "HTML tidy", which includes a handy option to undo word 2000's damage. There is also the "demoroniser", written by a gentleman whose name escapes me and updated by Tom Christiansen et al... check Perl.com for "demoroniser" (yes, the Brit / Aussie spelling.
You *can* run KDE apps under GNOME, or under any standalone window manager. You just need the KDE (including QT) libraries. There are some minor drawbacks: 1) inconsistency in look and feel between QT / GTK+ apps... I find it jarring, but you may not. 2) if you use GNOME and run a KDE app, you have to have two complete widget sets in memory... which may or may not be an issue, depending on what you do and how much RAM you have, etc.
You're assuming that VA won't allow Slashdot to "drift" away from Linux orientation. BUT...
As yet there seems to be no reason to doubt CmdrTaco et al's claims of editorial independence in perpetuity.
Even if (1) is overly optimistic, VA doesn't need/. to be a Linux mouthpiece... it has plenty of other ones.
Andover didn't buy/. ultimately because it was about linux, it bought/. because it appeared to be a good investment. Mutatis mutandis for VA and Andover. Where's the value in a site that nobody visits anymore?
Read this. The principal sent Ian Lake (the kid in question) home once for having his hair dyed pink because the principal thought it would be "a distraction." So obviously he's not terribly tolerant or interested in even allowing for (let alone promoting) any kind of diversity.
Agreed, there shouldn't be any difference. But they don't confiscate all your pens when you libel someone in print, so why should they be confiscating his computer?
Have you ever really listened to the way *most* people talk? Often, we seem to employ some sort of semantic filter that distills the information contained in the utterance rather than commit the actual noises to memory. (that's a pop-psychological analysis... I claim no research behind the proposed mechanism, but the phenomenon is clear enough)
"Verbatim" transcripts often never are. There are tons of pauses and "um"s and so forth that get filtered out in the transcribing process.
What emerges here is that Mr. Ulrich wasn't prepped, he's not a trained / seasoned public speaker, and this is how he sounds. Does it sound dorky when you write it down and think of how it would have been said? Yes, I suppose it does, but I bet you wouldn't notice it *as much* in a face-to-face conversation.
I actually thought he was reasonably articulate. I now know what happened and why, and what his position is.
Isn't it a little soon to be starting that? Support for these languages is only beginning to emerge in major web browsers; even when (say) Mozilla's ready, to put everything into XHTML or XML would be to tie/.'s readership to one of two browsers, which contravenes one of the goals of/. -- to reach as many nerds as possible.
Now, if you're talking about having this as an option for those bleeding-edgers, you may have something there.
Currently, is there a useable browser that understands XML other than IE 5, or other Win32-only (near enough) apps? Lack of test systems may figure into the equation here.
Yes, "Helix" GNOME... they customize GNOME somewhat, so they have reason to stick their name on it. You get some stuff in Helix's GNOME packages that don't come with standard GNOME of the form you find at ftp.gnome.org. To the best of my knowledge, what Helixcode adds is all under the GPL, though, so if the GNOME team decided to add those programs to the standard distributions, they could.
If RedHat released a custom kernel that extended the capabilities of the kernel, then yeah, they could call it "RedHat kernel 2.4" Of course if they did, they'd have hell to pay. Or maybe not, since it would be GPL'd, and everybody could use it and we could thank them for contributing yet again to kernel development, and there'd be no point in calling it "RedHat kernel" any more.
Hermiticism does not involve family. Preservation of life is not an absolute moral imperitive, either, as it is often morally acceptable to kill when defending your country or loved ones.
self gratification is the goal behind every human action. Then again, that's just an absolute...:)
First, there's two different senses of "absolute" you're mixing up -- "admits of no exceptions" and "true across cultures"; your examples speak only to the former, not the latter. Show me a society that doesn't place an extremely high value on life in general, even if (as seems plausible) all recognize that there are situations in which it is OK to kill someone else. And besides, the original poster was pointing out that it's unreasonable to simply *assume* moral relativism.
Second point. OK, there's a smiley there, but... There's just no way of construing that claim that doesn't make it completely vacuous or misleadingly false.
Old story about Abe Lincoln, who stopped a stagecoach he was travelling in to (IIRC) pull some piglets out of the mud to reunite them with their mother. He had been arguing for the claim that no one acts out of anything other than self interest with someone else in the stagecoach (one of the little details that makes it likely apocryphal, but what the hey). Lincoln's opponent said "there, you just did that unselfish act, Abe" to which Lincoln replied "That was the soul of selfishness. Don't you see, I couldn't have lived with myself if I hadn't helped those piglets!"
Lincoln's error lies in assuming that "this is a desire of mine" entails "this is a self-interested desire." He would have felt horrible precisely because he wished not to see the pigs suffer -- the object of his concern was the piglets.
the settlement is being paid for by smokers, who are disproportionately members of minority groups and in lower than average income brackets. That seems very progressive to me, steal from the poor and give to the rich.
Yes, it turns out that people who now choose to smoke in full light of even the vendors' own dragged-kicking-and-screaming-from-their-secret-va ults-where-they-kept-them-locked-away-fo r-years admissions that the product is indeed harmful have to pay more for that product.
In advance of the sarcasm that's to follow, what do you suggest should have happened instead? And how would you bring it about without a big legal stick?
Meanwhile, state governments are blowing all the money they got from it on increasing legislators salaries, not on programs that citizens have requested or (heaven forfend) on health care and the like. That's right, it's of no benefit to any citizen, since "the government" is this completely separated individual who has no connection to any of the citizens' lives, and certainly no other programs will benefit from the fact that the government has access to a different source of funds.
And the tobacco companies now have complete freedom to just put crack in with their cigarettes, no one worries about what they do any more now they've been found to be lying sleazeballs for decades.
I'm reminded of what a presidential candidate (no, not Al, and not Dubya; hint -- Unsafe at Any Speed) said. Basically, it amounted to "You may not like lawyers much, but the only people that have done anything to make sure giant corporations are held responsible for their actions are trial lawyers. Yes, a lot of lawyers became very wealthy as a result of the tobacco settlement, but would RJR & friends ever been reined in had it not been for them?"
Let alone all the ones you never hear of who take pro bono cases for causes they believe in.
Slashdot Mirror
Something to that effect is still available on the php.net homepage. Check there and zend.com for a more definitive answer.
A MNemOnic I offer to the world: MySQL is Not Oracle. It doesn't try to be one, that's not the goal. Yes, it isn't a heck of a lot more than an SQL frontend to a flat file system. That's all some of us want. OK, subselects would be nice, but IIRC they're working on that. But this constant kvetching about lack of transactions should really stop. If you want something with transactions, use Postgres or Interbase or pay for it.
I am becoming *such* a cranky old man.
... that's trademarks. So it doesn't apply to this case.
My worry is that precedents will be set that later judges will be loath to overturn; and, even if they get set it will give those with legal resources a stick with which to beat those without legal resources.
The worst-case version of this scenario is if the decisions go "against" linking, i.e. making linking to disputed content tantamount to hosting and/ or distributing the disputed content yourself. Then the RIAA, MPAA, etc. will have a great deal of power, by simply threatening to exercise their "rights" to seek redress, giving them de facto control over content on the web.
Or maybe I'm just being paranoid ...
True ... but doesn't the point carry across to any organization that simply exhibits a willingness to litigate? Y'know, I could *almost* support PETA ... at least as a corrective to the extreme "they're just animals" kind of view out there. But, given
Simply reinforces the idea that all lefties are rigid and humourless, and it doesn't help their cause much (the good points they make will be obscured by these bad ones). Bad news. Bad PETA. </rant>
"Banana Republic Justice" sounds to me like what you get when the wealthy and unelected control the (ostensibly) elected. Suppose they are trying to ram this through on Clinton/Reno's watch ... and suppose MS' strategy IS to delay as long as possible and hope the Shrub will pull their ass out of the fire. Well, that's equally cynical, and every bit as much "Banana Republic" as you allege against the DOJ.
Let's remind ourselves of who is recommending the most expeditious resolution of this case. Judge Jackson is the one who made this decision. Why the hell would he want to help out Clinton? Sure, he doesn't want to be reversed, but if that's his aim, then he's going to go for the most legally defensible ruling he can come up with. Notice, again, how hard he's tried to get the two parties to settle. That doesn't sound like the actions of a rabid trust-buster, now, does it?
In pursuing a delaying strategy, MS seems to be accepting that, judicially, they don't have much to stand on (speaking cautiously: all indications are that a witness of theirs lied, and incredibly clumsily, at one point during the trial, and on a non-trivial issue -- that infects ALL of their testimony).
Maybe the point of pushing this through on the current watch is precisely that the decision that's made is LESS LIKELY to be made on the basis of irrelevant factors. At least, whatever people may think of Jackson's knowledge of the IT industry, I think it's pretty clear that the Shrub's is likely to be much, much worse (again, I speak with the lawyers).
I guess you have to add me to that count =)
If this quote (which is apparently what Debian maintains) is true, then aren't Redhat, Corel, Mandrake, SuSE, (etc. etc. etc. etc.) BREAKING THE LAW by distributing binary KDE packages?
Do their respective legal departments know about this?
Or is the whole issue moot because those who would have to bring forth a complaint about license violations simply won't bother? (And who would those people be, anyhow? The KDE coders?)
Anybody got a link to information on this issue?
ummm ... except maybe that it's a rant about MySQL, and this is a review of a book about the Perl DBI?
This isn't to deny that there aren't good points in there (there are some very good points that people looking for a DBMS should know about), but it is to deny that it's on topic.
MySQL is not the only "free for use" DBMS out there. PostgreSQL, while slower, is actually much closer to SQL standards and just hit version 7.0
I'm too lazy to go out and find the urls at the moment, but there are two tools that can fix your MS-Word HTML problems. The W3C now offers "HTML tidy", which includes a handy option to undo word 2000's damage. There is also the "demoroniser", written by a gentleman whose name escapes me and updated by Tom Christiansen et al ... check Perl.com for "demoroniser" (yes, the Brit / Aussie spelling.
You *can* run KDE apps under GNOME, or under any standalone window manager. You just need the KDE (including QT) libraries. There are some minor drawbacks: 1) inconsistency in look and feel between QT / GTK+ apps ... I find it jarring, but you may not. 2) if you use GNOME and run a KDE app, you have to have two complete widget sets in memory ... which may or may not be an issue, depending on what you do and how much RAM you have, etc.
Read this. The principal sent Ian Lake (the kid in question) home once for having his hair dyed pink because the principal thought it would be "a distraction." So obviously he's not terribly tolerant or interested in even allowing for (let alone promoting) any kind of diversity.
Agreed, there shouldn't be any difference. But they don't confiscate all your pens when you libel someone in print, so why should they be confiscating his computer?
"often never are" ... whoa, that sucks, especially in a discussion about sentence construction =)
Have you ever really listened to the way *most* people talk? Often, we seem to employ some sort of semantic filter that distills the information contained in the utterance rather than commit the actual noises to memory. (that's a pop-psychological analysis ... I claim no research behind the proposed mechanism, but the phenomenon is clear enough)
"Verbatim" transcripts often never are. There are tons of pauses and "um"s and so forth that get filtered out in the transcribing process.
What emerges here is that Mr. Ulrich wasn't prepped, he's not a trained / seasoned public speaker, and this is how he sounds. Does it sound dorky when you write it down and think of how it would have been said? Yes, I suppose it does, but I bet you wouldn't notice it *as much* in a face-to-face conversation.
I actually thought he was reasonably articulate. I now know what happened and why, and what his position is.
Isn't it a little soon to be starting that? Support for these languages is only beginning to emerge in major web browsers; even when (say) Mozilla's ready, to put everything into XHTML or XML would be to tie /.'s readership to one of two browsers, which contravenes one of the goals of /. -- to reach as many nerds as possible.
Now, if you're talking about having this as an option for those bleeding-edgers, you may have something there.
Currently, is there a useable browser that understands XML other than IE 5, or other Win32-only (near enough) apps? Lack of test systems may figure into the equation here.
Yes, "Helix" GNOME ... they customize GNOME somewhat, so they have reason to stick their name on it. You get some stuff in Helix's GNOME packages that don't come with standard GNOME of the form you find at ftp.gnome.org. To the best of my knowledge, what Helixcode adds is all under the GPL, though, so if the GNOME team decided to add those programs to the standard distributions, they could.
If RedHat released a custom kernel that extended the capabilities of the kernel, then yeah, they could call it "RedHat kernel 2.4" Of course if they did, they'd have hell to pay. Or maybe not, since it would be GPL'd, and everybody could use it and we could thank them for contributing yet again to kernel development, and there'd be no point in calling it "RedHat kernel" any more.
First, there's two different senses of "absolute" you're mixing up -- "admits of no exceptions" and "true across cultures"; your examples speak only to the former, not the latter. Show me a society that doesn't place an extremely high value on life in general, even if (as seems plausible) all recognize that there are situations in which it is OK to kill someone else. And besides, the original poster was pointing out that it's unreasonable to simply *assume* moral relativism.
Second point. OK, there's a smiley there, but ... There's just no way of construing that claim that doesn't make it completely vacuous or misleadingly false.
Old story about Abe Lincoln, who stopped a stagecoach he was travelling in to (IIRC) pull some piglets out of the mud to reunite them with their mother. He had been arguing for the claim that no one acts out of anything other than self interest with someone else in the stagecoach (one of the little details that makes it likely apocryphal, but what the hey). Lincoln's opponent said "there, you just did that unselfish act, Abe" to which Lincoln replied "That was the soul of selfishness. Don't you see, I couldn't have lived with myself if I hadn't helped those piglets!"
Lincoln's error lies in assuming that "this is a desire of mine" entails "this is a self-interested desire." He would have felt horrible precisely because he wished not to see the pigs suffer -- the object of his concern was the piglets.
Err, find a presidential candidate that's *not* a parody of a presidential candidate.
You still don't answer the question "How would you handle it?" Who else would have held them responsible?
Who, in the system as it currently stands, can the "little guy" turn to for defense from the "big guy?"
Yes, it turns out that people who now choose to smoke in full light of even the vendors' own dragged-kicking-and-screaming-from-their-secret-va ults-where-they-kept-them-locked-away-fo r-years admissions that the product is indeed harmful have to pay more for that product.
In advance of the sarcasm that's to follow, what do you suggest should have happened instead? And how would you bring it about without a big legal stick?
Meanwhile, state governments are blowing all the money they got from it on increasing legislators salaries, not on programs that citizens have requested or (heaven forfend) on health care and the like. That's right, it's of no benefit to any citizen, since "the government" is this completely separated individual who has no connection to any of the citizens' lives, and certainly no other programs will benefit from the fact that the government has access to a different source of funds.
And the tobacco companies now have complete freedom to just put crack in with their cigarettes, no one worries about what they do any more now they've been found to be lying sleazeballs for decades.
I'm reminded of what a presidential candidate (no, not Al, and not Dubya; hint -- Unsafe at Any Speed) said. Basically, it amounted to "You may not like lawyers much, but the only people that have done anything to make sure giant corporations are held responsible for their actions are trial lawyers. Yes, a lot of lawyers became very wealthy as a result of the tobacco settlement, but would RJR & friends ever been reined in had it not been for them?"
Let alone all the ones you never hear of who take pro bono cases for causes they believe in.
Turn on your sarcasm detector. Especially read what he has to say about Linus (or his father) throwing chickens around.